Testimony of David Luban
Senate Judiciary Committee,
Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts
Hearing: “What Went Wrong: Torture and the Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush Administration”
May 13, 2009

Chairman Whitehouse and members of the subcommittee.

Thank you for inviting me to testify today. You’ve asked me to talk about the legal ethics of the torture and interrogation memos written by lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel. Based on the publicly-available sources I’ve studied, I believe that the memos are an ethical train wreck.

When a lawyer advises a client about what the law requires, there is one basic ethical obligation: to tell it straight, without slanting or skewing. That can be a hard thing to do, if the legal answer isn’t the one the client wants. Very few lawyers ever enjoy saying “no” to a client who was hoping for “yes”. But the profession’s ethical standard is clear: a legal adviser must use independent judgment and give candid, unvarnished advice. In the words of the American Bar Association, “a lawyer should not be deterred from giving candid advice by the prospect that the advice will be unpalatable to the client.” [1]

That is the governing standard for all lawyers, in public practice or private. But it’s doubly important for lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel. The mission of OLC is to give the President advice to guide him in fulfilling an awesome constitutional obligation: to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. Faithful execution means interpreting the law without stretching it and without looking for loopholes. OLC’s job is not to rubber-stamp administration policies, and it is not to provide legal cover for illegal actions.

No lawyer’s advice should do that. The rules of professional ethics forbid lawyers from counseling or assisting clients in illegal conduct; [2] they require competence;[3] and they demand that lawyers explain enough that the client can make an informed decision, which surely means explaining the law as it is. [4] These are standards that the entire legal profession recognizes.

Unfortunately, the torture memos fall far short of professional standards of candid advice and independent judgment. They involve a selective and in places deeply eccentric reading of the law. The memos cherry-pick sources of law that back their conclusions, and leave out sources of law that do not. They read as if they were reverse engineered to reach a pre-determined outcome: approval of waterboarding and the other CIA techniques.

My written statement goes through the memos in detail, Mr. Chairman. Let me give just one example here of what I am talking about. Twenty-six years ago, President Reagan’s Justice Department prosecuted law enforcement officers for waterboarding prisoners to make them confess. The case is called United States v. Lee. [5] Four men were convicted and drew hefty sentences that the Court of Appeals upheld. [6]

The Court of Appeals repeatedly referred to the technique as “torture.” This is perhaps the single most relevant case in American law to the legality of waterboarding. [7] Any lawyer can find the Lee case in a few seconds on a computer just by typing the words “water torture” into a database. But the authors of the torture memos never mentioned it. They had no trouble finding cases where courts didn’t call harsh interrogation techniques “torture.”[8] It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Mr. Yoo, Judge Bybee, and Mr. Bradbury chose not to mention the Lee case because it casts doubt on their conclusion that waterboarding is legal.[9]

Without getting further into technicalities that, quite frankly, only a lawyer could love, I’d like to briefly mention other ways that the torture memos twisted and distorted the law. The first Bybee memo advances a startlingly broad theory of executive power, according to which the President as commander-in-chief can override criminal laws. This was a theory that Jack Goldsmith, who headed the OLC after Judge Bybee’s departure, described as an “extreme conclusion” that “has no foundation in prior OLC opinions, or in judicial decisions, or in any other source of law.”[10] It comes very close to President Nixon’s notorious statement that “when the President does it, that means it is not illegal”—except that Mr. Nixon was speaking off the cuff in a high pressure interview, not a written opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel.

The first Bybee memo also wrenches language from a Medicare statute to explain the legal definition of torture. The Medicare statute lists “severe pain” as a symptom that might indicate a medical emergency. Mr. Yoo flips the statute and announces that only pain equivalent in intensity to “organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death” can be “severe.” This definition was so bizarre that the OLC itself disowned it a few months after it became public.[11] It is unusual for one OLC opinion to disown an earlier one, and it shows just how far out of the mainstream Professor Yoo and Judge Bybee had wandered. The memo’s authors were obviously looking for a standard of torture so high that none of the enhanced interrogation techniques would count. But legal ethics does not permit lawyers to make frivolous arguments merely because it gets them the results they wanted. I should note that on January 15 of this year, Mr. Bradbury found it necessary to withdraw six additional OLC opinions by Professor Yoo or Judge Bybee.[12]

Mr. Chairman, recent news reports have said that the Justice Department’s internal ethics watchdog, the Office of Professional Responsibility, has completed a five-year investigation of the torture memos. OPR has the power to refer lawyers to their state bar disciplinary authorities, and news reports say they will do so.
I have no personal knowledge about what OPR has found. Presumably, investigators were looking either for evidence of incompetence, evidence that the lawyers knew their memos don’t accurately reflect the law, or evidence that process was short-circuited.

This morning I have called the torture memos a legal train wreck. I believe it’s impossible that lawyers of such great talent and intelligence could have written these memos in the good faith belief that they accurately state the law. But what I or anyone else believes is irrelevant. Ethics violations must be proved, by clear and convincing evidence, not just asserted. That sets a high bar, and it should be a high bar.

In closing, I would like to emphasize to this Committee that when OLC lawyers write opinions, especially secret opinions, the stakes are high. Their advice governs the executive branch, and officials must be told frankly when they are on legal thin ice. They and the American people deserve the highest level of professionalism and independent judgment, and I am sorry to say that they did not get it here.

I know this will not change the opinions of those who think waterboarding is not torture, however, I think this clearly shows that legally what the Bush administration did was a violation of the law.

Matt McKenzie

05-19-2009, 07:33 AM

Who is David Luban?

subroc

05-19-2009, 07:46 AM

No torture appologist here, just someone that differs in opinion on what torture is with Luban and cotts135.

cotts135

05-19-2009, 08:08 AM

No torture appologist here, just someone that differs in opinion on what torture is with Luban and cotts135.

Subroc, without question your entitled to your opinion, what I would like to know is what it is based on?

This is for anyone who would like to answer. Recently Mclatchey news and others have reported that waterboarding and other torture techniques may have been used to extract info connecting Iraq with Al-qaeda . If true is there any justification for using these techniques for this clearly political reason? If there is I would certainly like to hear about it.

Hew

05-19-2009, 08:08 AM

I'll take your liberal lawyer and raise him with a more distinguished, more famous and perhaps even more liberal law professor who contends that you guys need to pull your skirts down from around your heads. ;-)
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010832

twall

05-19-2009, 09:49 AM

OK, you posted testimony presented to a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee that contests legal opinions of the previous administration. And that proves what? His opinions support your opinions. Therefore, this is a must read for everyone so we can be enlightened and converted to your point of view? The case cited referred to law enforcement. The Bush administration was dealing with a different class of people with a completely different set of goals.

Personally, I don't care if it is called torture. It is a far cry from what most of us think of when we hear the word torture. There are plenty of people who think the use of an e collar on a dog is torutre. In the hands of the wrong person the most benign object can be used for torture.

I think the bigger question is are we as a nation in agreement that there are people in this world who seek to harm us regardless of what we do. They hate us and will do whatever they can to destroy us. On September 11, 2001 a small group of terrorists proved that they do not need to have a large military to attack us. They proved that if they are willing to sacrifice their lives they can bring this country to its knees and cause great harm to us. They feel they are successful as long as they attempt to harm us. They are counting on their will to harm us being greater than our will to protect ourselves. They are patient. We, as a society, are not patient. They will succeed in the future, sometime, somewhere. We, as a society, need to deciede if we are going to protect ourselves. Just because we bribe people with our aid does not mean they no longer hate us. Just because we want people to like us does not they no longer hate us. Just because we leave our enemies alone does not mean they no longer hate us.

Do I think we should give the CIA free reign to do as they please no. I believe there needs to be oversight and support for the work they do. I don't think every detail needs to be used as political ammunition. We should be able to trust our elected offials to make decisions in the best interest of the country, not for current of future political expediancy.

I'm sure you are not surprised to read that the testimony you posted has not changed my mind or political beliefs.

Tom

cotts135

05-19-2009, 09:57 AM

I'll take your liberal lawyer and raise him with a more distinguished, more famous and perhaps even more liberal law professor who contends that you guys need to pull your skirts down from around your heads. ;-)
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010832
Interesting article Hew. Did you take note of the date though? Were you aware that the sub heading of the article is that the Democrats will lose the election if they are perceived soft on terror.

I am not suggesting that Democratic candidates seek to emulate Mr. Giuliani. But they cannot ignore his tough stance on national security if they want to succeed in the 2008 election, as distinguished from selected state primaries. Marginal Democratic candidates certainly benefit from moving to the left on national security issues, but serious candidates--candidates who want to have any realistic chance of prevailing in the general election--must not allow themselves to be pushed, shoved or even nudged away from a strong commitment to national security.

His implication to me here is clear. Only a canidate strong on terror will win the election. We all now know how that election went. There are however some things I agree with him on. My contention about this has always been the legality of it. Dershowitz says in his article:

Most Americans--Democrats, Republicans, independents or undecided--want a president who will be strong, as well as smart, on national security, and who will do everything in his or her lawful power to prevent further acts of terrorism.
He further quotes President Clinton in an NPR interview he did:

He said Congress should draw a narrow statute "which would permit the president to make a finding in a case like I just outlined, and then that finding could be submitted even if after the fact to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court." The president would have to "take personal responsibility" for authorizing torture in such an extreme situation. Sen. John McCain has also said that as president he would take responsibility for authorizing torture in that "one in a million" situation.

I am not in total agreement with this solution. Bush and co would have been better served if this had been existing law, instead , they chose to wear skirts and hide behind some dubious and far fetched legal theorys that have been widely debunked and scorned by the legal community

road kill

05-19-2009, 10:17 AM

This is something that should NOT be plastered all over the world wide media.
This is something that should NOT be politicized.

This is something that happened at the time because we were under attack and no one, I repeat NO ONE knew the extent of the attack.

We did what we thought we had to do to survive this.

At the time, almost every one agreed we had to do what we had to do.

To go back and blame 1 person or party is disingenuous to say the least.

Torture my foot. Just a faster way to get to the bottom of the matter.

Cody Covey

05-19-2009, 05:30 PM

so by that article Bush and Cheney did nothing wrong, right? They just did what they were told was legal.

subroc

05-19-2009, 07:14 PM

Subroc, without question your entitled to your opinion, what I would like to know is what it is based on?...

As you say, it is an opinion. Just like legal opinion. I base my opinion of what constitutes torture on something very simple like phisical harm, examples might be flaying, cutting off fingers and hands with a bolt cutter, blow torching an extremity, breaking every bone in a body, dragging someone behand a car with frequent stops for questioning, those are the types of things that I consider torture. I consider discomfort that is designed to extact information, like water boarding, sleep deprivation, isolation, etc. that doesn't leave any more of a scar than lowered self esteeme or emotional scars little more than an enhanced interogation technique and not really worth the debate. But it appears that many in this country need, for political reasons or other motivations, to deem any interogation as torture.

Gerry Clinchy

05-19-2009, 09:24 PM

We seem to have beat this horse to death.

Clinton clearly perjured himself. FDR incarcerated innocent American citizens because they happened to be Japanese. Nobody indicted either of them.

Spending a ton of taxpayer money on this issue is probably is not worth it. No matter what the outcome, it won't change people's opinions of the issue.

Sometimes it is better to take whatever we may have learned from an experience & move on.

luvalab

05-19-2009, 10:16 PM

As nothing has actually changed, except the location of the torture or not-quite-torture venues, I'm not sure what is being so hotly debated.

Torture/not-torture and endless imprisonment without trial (or safeguarding the public, depending on your point of view, I suppose) in a concrete box in Afghanistan seems to me no more and no less sinister (or necessary, or whatever) from doing it in Cuba.

Eh. Those who defend the Bush administration's tactics ought not to be upset with anything after 100+ days. Mr. Obama seems intent on simply following through on the various programs Mr. Bush got rolling, whether it's off-shore torture (or whatever) prisons or the melding of government and big business and banking.

The only thing that seems to have changed is who's doing the impotent outraged handwringing and dramatics.

You can rest easy, righties. :rolleyes: New bumper sticker: Obama--Status quo we can believe in.

subroc

05-24-2009, 11:58 AM

Here is a pretty good article on the subject...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09144/972098-109.stm

Gerry Clinchy

05-24-2009, 12:46 PM

In reading the Post-Gazette article, one sentence stood out:
Just ask yourself, if you were captured would you betray your comrades because the enemy treated you nicely?

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to respond, "Of course not."

So, then, exactly what is permitted in questioning an enemy combatant and/or terrorist? Or should we expect that once someone is captured we shouldn't bother questioning them? Or should interrogators be limited to, "Please, would you tell me where Osama Bin Laden is right now?" Seems there might be some middle ground between that & "torture".

subroc

05-24-2009, 01:58 PM

To those that think like cotts anything beyond a few calm questions constitutes torture. Asking several questions in a row would be badgering and that would constitute torture and to raise your voice would be form of vicious and severe intimidation and that is clearly torture.

Gerry Clinchy

05-24-2009, 02:47 PM

To those that think like cotts anything beyond a few calm questions constitutes torture. Asking several questions in a row would be badgering and that would constitute torture and to raise your voice would be form of vicious and severe intimidation and that is clearly torture.

LOL! I think that there have been college professors who have done as much to their students in a classroom! Yeah, come to think of it, I have to admit that some of my college courses in math were torture ;-)

subroc

05-24-2009, 03:01 PM

Stepping off a shore line while training and filling your boot with water and having to spend an hour or two with a wet boot is clearly torture...

luvalab

05-24-2009, 03:16 PM

Stepping off a shore line while training and filling your boot with water and having to spend an hour or two with a wet boot is clearly torture...

That goes without saying.

Mike Noel

05-24-2009, 07:02 PM

My definition of torture: If it is used to save ONE American life, its not torture.

In my eyes, THEY (being Al-Queda and other islamic exrememists) brought it upon themselves.

cotts135

05-24-2009, 08:31 PM

To those that think like cotts anything beyond a few calm questions constitutes torture. Asking several questions in a row would be badgering and that would constitute torture and to raise your voice would be form of vicious and severe intimidation and that is clearly torture.
Your making some pretty big assumptions on what I am thinking. Your also exaggerating and misrepresenting situations that I am sure very few people would agree, Including myself but that's what you people do when you can't win an argument on it's merits.
My contention has always been that torture is illegal and that waterboarding is torture. You have stated your opinion that you don't think waterboarding is torture. Fine enough, I disagree. You don't think drowning someone is physical harm I do.
I also find that these red herring and straw man arguments I hear are ridiculous. Like the one that we obtained information that has saved lives because we tortured. Even if we have it is still illegal.The mafia used to kill people to keep them quiet, that was effective, but it was still against the law. Now we are hearing that Bush and Co. might have used waterboarding to further there political cause of going to war with Iraq. Is it OK to use it then?
Finally I think it is also important that we keep our promises when we sign treaty's. Keeping ones word is a trait I admire.

Here is just a counterpoint to the article you referenced in a previous post.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
That article had many straw men arguments in it. One of my favorites being "Our special forces, pilots and Navy SEALs have themselves been waterboarded in training for decades, without adverse affects." It is not illegal to do that.

Mike Noel

05-24-2009, 08:41 PM

Your making some pretty big assumptions on what I am thinking. Your also exaggerating and misrepresenting situations that I am sure very few people would agree, Including myself but that's what you people do when you can't win an argument on it's merits.
My contention has always been that torture is illegal and that waterboarding is torture. You have stated your opinion that you don't think waterboarding is torture. Fine enough, I disagree. You don't think drowning someone is physical harm I do.
I also find that these red herring and straw man arguments I hear are ridiculous. Like the one that we obtained information that has saved lives because we tortured. Even if we have it is still illegal.The mafia used to kill people to keep them quiet, that was effective, but it was still against the law. Now we are hearing that Bush and Co. might have used waterboarding to further there political cause of going to war with Iraq. Is it OK to use it then?
Finally I think it is also important that we keep our promises when we sign treaty's. Keeping ones word is a trait I admire.

cotts, I bet your parents put you in time out instead of spanking you, didn't they.

If I was a soldier you would be the LAST one I would want watching my back.

War is Hell regards,

subroc

05-24-2009, 09:51 PM

Your making some pretty big assumptions on what I am thinking. Your also exaggerating and misrepresenting situations that I am sure very few people would agree, Including myself but that's what you people do when you can't win an argument on it's merits.

I am willing to debate this issue on the merits. There is disagreement on what constitutes torture. I agree, torture is illegal. I listed things I consider torture and things I don't. will you do the same?

My contention has always been that torture is illegal and that waterboarding is torture. You have stated your opinion that you don't think waterboarding is torture. Fine enough, I disagree. You don't think drowning someone is physical harm I do.

Drowning someone is but the threat of drowning which is what waterboarding is, isn't. See, you made a leap here. Not stating a truth but making a leap to further your position.

I also find that these red herring and straw man arguments I hear are ridiculous. Like the one that we obtained information that has saved lives because we tortured. Even if we have it is still illegal.

I find your position a straw man argument as well. You have to believe that waterboarding is torture to believe the stated position by the past administration that torture saved lives. I say interogation saved lives and waterboarding is little more than interogation with the "threat" of harm (drowning) not actual harm.

Finally I think it is also important that we keep our promises when we sign treaty's. Keeping ones word is a trait I admire.

Me too, except if the security of the nation hangs in the balance.

Gerry Clinchy

05-25-2009, 08:17 AM

Cotts135 wrote

That article had many straw men arguments in it. One of my favorites being "Our special forces, pilots and Navy SEALs have themselves been waterboarded in training for decades, without adverse affects." It is not illegal to do that.

I was listening to a radio discussion on this aspect of torture ... "specific intent" v. "general intent".

For example, our military are subjected to rigorous physical and mental stress during training. That is amplified, I believe, in the special forces and military academies. And, it is not considered illegal in those circumstances because the specific intent to cause severe injury is not a factor.

If we are going to talk about torture as distinguished from acceptably rigorous interrogation, then there have to be definitions that we can deal with more objectively than what I've seen so far mentioned.

I keep returning to the thought of would you, or anyone, give away information to an enemy just because they asked? Where is the line drawn?

I would also present, that it matters not if Gitmo remains open or is closed. What matters is how the inmates are treated. It doesn't matter where they are located geographically. Why incur the expense of moving those Gitmo inmates just to incarcerate them somewhere else? That makes zero sense to me.

cotts135

05-25-2009, 09:10 AM

I am willing to debate this issue on the merits. There is disagreement on what constitutes torture. I agree, torture is illegal. I listed things I consider torture and things I don't. will you do the same?

Sure, everything you mentioned in your previous post I would also consider torture. Of course waterboarding I also think is torture. As for some of the other techniques used such as sleep deprivation, stress positions, exposure to cold, I will grant you that taken individually they might not be considered torture, but used collectively as they were with some detainees and as a way of life I would consider them torture.

Drowning someone is but the threat of drowning which is what waterboarding is, isn't. See, you made a leap here. Not stating a truth but making a leap to further your position.

Let's reduce this to it's simplest terms. You breathe in water that goes into your lungs you are drowning. This is not even debatable. While this is happening the idea that this is a threat is laughable. Your drowning plain and simple and you want it to end. Check out the video where Matt Mancow a Chicago radio host was waterboarded. This guy was and is a die hard conservative who previously felt like you do that waterboarding is not torture.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Mancow-Takes-on-Waterboarding-and-Loses.html

Pete

05-25-2009, 09:25 AM

Cotts
This is simple to figure out.
1 question,

How would you you personally extarct life saving imformation from a known terrorist or someone you know has info of the where abouts and condition of one of your loved ones.?

List a couple of techniques you consider appropriate.

subroc

05-25-2009, 09:30 AM

Sure, everything you mentioned in your previous post I would also consider torture. Of course waterboarding I also think is torture. As for some of the other techniques used such as sleep deprivation, stress positions, exposure to cold, I will grant you that taken individually they might not be considered torture, but used collectively as they were with some detainees and as a way of life I would consider them torture.

As a way of life?

Are you asserting that these werent used as active interigations meant to extract information but something else?

I see you agree that many of the meathods that are used are not torture. It appears you agree with me.

Let's reduce this to it's simplest terms. You breathe in water that goes into your lungs you are drowning. This is not even debatable. While this is happening the idea that this is a threat is laughable. Your drowning plain and simple and you want it to end. Check out the video where Matt Mancow a Chicago radio host was waterboarded. This guy was and is a die hard conservative who previously felt like you do that waterboarding is not torture.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Mancow-Takes-on-Waterboarding-and-Loses.html

I have no need to view this video (I believe you can find one with maddow as well), there are plenty of them around. That waterboarding is unpleasant is undisputible. It is meant to extract information. It isn't meant to be pleasant. You need to fear that will drown to believe that stopping will save you. The fact that the threat is real is the whole reason it has a place in an arsenal of meathods.

I find it interesting that we agree on most points except waterboarding although this "way of life" thing has me confused...

Art Geddes

05-25-2009, 10:21 AM

Perhaps the first paragraph of this testimony is the most telling:

"You’ve asked me to talk about the legal ethics of the torture and interrogation memos written by lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel. Based on the publicly-available sources I’ve studied, I believe that the memos are an ethical train wreck."

"Based on the 'publicly-available' sources I've studied" kind of states it all. Since the current administration chose to release documents that can be used to paint the previous administration in a bad light, and refuse to release other documents former higher-ups have requested, any testimony based on these should be suspect.

Just have to state this -- Dick Cheney in 2012.

Art

Gerry Clinchy

05-25-2009, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by cotts135 http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=449294#post449294)
Sure, everything you mentioned in your previous post I would also consider torture. Of course waterboarding I also think is torture. As for some of the other techniques used such as sleep deprivation, stress positions, exposure to cold, I will grant you that taken individually they might not be considered torture, but used collectively as they were with some detainees and as a way of life I would consider them torture.

Would this mean that each interrogation would have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis? Would this mean that the interrogators would have to lay out their plan for what methods they intended to use; how long stress methods would be used; what combinations of methods to be used ... so that someone could then give "approval" as to whether the planned interrogation constituted torture? Or would it be a committee of people who would have to approve the planned interrogation? Would that committee be made up of members of Congress? (we know how long they can take to make a decision ... unless it has to do with spending taxpayer $).

Or can there be a definition that can be used "in the field", without the interrogators being worried about whether they will later be court-martialed?

Gerry

badbullgator

05-25-2009, 11:42 AM

What do I consider torture of an individual who was picked up on a battlefield and is our enemy?

What do I not consider torture?
1)Anything that gets the job done and potentially saves the lives of anyone, be it American or otherwise that the person in question is an enemy of.

As stated in another post, I love that everyone feels they are granted the right to know who, what, where, and when of every NATIONAL SECURITY issue that comes up. I have no problem sleeping in my bed at night knowing that somewhere in the world someone is doing what some might consider bad things to someone else to keep me, my loved ones, and my country safe. I thank those who do the job everyday and especially today.

cotts135

05-25-2009, 11:56 AM

Cotts
This is simple to figure out.
1 question,

How would you you personally extarct life saving imformation from a known terrorist or someone you know has info of the where abouts and condition of one of your loved ones.?

List a couple of techniques you consider appropriate.

If I knew that I wouldn't be prosecuted I might do just about anything. Even with the threat of jail time without question I would be tempted to do what ever it took to get what I needed. This is such a hypothetical question with the chances of it ever happening as close to zero as you can come, I can only answer I don't know what I would do. But here is a big difference between what Bush and Co. did and myself. If I broke the law doing what I had to do to get that info I would freely admit it and accept the consequences.
I am sure most of you are familiar with the case of the father shooting and killing in an airport the pervert who molested his daughter who at the time was being escorted by some police. The father dropped his gun and surrended immediately. Now if I was in the same position, this sounds like a pretty good idea to me but I would be prepared for what happened afterward s. Bush and his buddies are just a bunch of p%^&ys hiding behind some bu$$^&it legal theories which they know they probably can't win. If they would just stand up and say "yeah we did it but we were trying to protect the country" I certainly would have more sympathy for them just like I do for the guy who shot the molester.

badbullgator

05-25-2009, 12:10 PM

If I knew that I wouldn't be prosecuted I might do just about anything. Even with the threat of jail time without question I would be tempted to do what ever it took to get what I needed. This is such a hypothetical question with the chances of it ever happening as close to zero as you can come, I can only answer I don't know what I would do. But here is a big difference between what Bush and Co. did and myself. If I broke the law doing what I had to do to get that info I would freely admit it and accept the consequences.
I am sure most of you are familiar with the case of the father shooting and killing in an airport the pervert who molested his daughter who at the time was being escorted by some police. The father dropped his gun and surrended immediately. Now if I was in the same position, this sounds like a pretty good idea to me but I would be prepared for what happened afterward s. Bush and his buddies are just a bunch of p%^&ys hiding behind some bu$$^&it legal theories which they know they probably can't win. If they would just stand up and say "yeah we did it but we were trying to protect the country" I certainly would have more sympathy for them just like I do for the guy who shot the molester.

bahahahahhahahahaha....man you guys hate Bush more than OBL it seems. You must be in heaven with the we hate America crowd in the white house.... You and Roger should get drunk together one night and get I hate Bush tattoed on your ass

Patrick Johndrow

05-25-2009, 12:27 PM

If I knew that I wouldn't be prosecuted I might do just about anything. Even with the threat of jail time without question I would be tempted to do what ever it took to get what I needed. This is such a hypothetical question with the chances of it ever happening as close to zero as you can come, I can only answer I don't know what I would do. But here is a big difference between what Bush and Co. did and myself. If I broke the law doing what I had to do to get that info I would freely admit it and accept the consequences.
I am sure most of you are familiar with the case of the father shooting and killing in an airport the pervert who molested his daughter who at the time was being escorted by some police. The father dropped his gun and surrended immediately. Now if I was in the same position, this sounds like a pretty good idea to me but I would be prepared for what happened afterward s. Bush and his buddies are just a bunch of p%^&ys hiding behind some bu$$^&it legal theories which they know they probably can't win. If they would just stand up and say "yeah we did it but we were trying to protect the country" I certainly would have more sympathy for them just like I do for the guy who shot the molester.
Seek anger management and learn to move on brother…while you are at it look at a map and figure out where you live…it is in the NE part of the United States, not the middle east.

I could care less what they do or have done with those monsters.

code3retrievers

05-25-2009, 12:58 PM

Lets put this in perspective.

A grand total of "3" high value individuals were waterboarded. Those of you hung up on this need to move on with your sorry lives. Your savior is now in office and these things are no longer occurring. Now you can go back to fretting about illegal wire tapping. Oh wait they just broke up a terror plot using just such tactics.

Why don't we just go back to the good old days before 9/11 and stick our heads in the sand and do nothing.

Patrick Johndrow

05-25-2009, 02:40 PM

Why don't we just go back to the good old days before 9/11 and stick our heads in the sand and do nothing.

I think the blood of 911 can be laid squarely at the Clinton administrations feet. Getting blow jobs and hiding the truth from his wife was more important than protecting his coutry and citizens.

Pete

05-25-2009, 06:02 PM

If I knew that I wouldn't be prosecuted I might do just about anything. Even with the threat of jail time without question I would be tempted to do what ever it took to get what I needed. This is such a hypothetical question with the chances of it ever happening as close to zero as you can come, I can only answer I don't know what I would do. But here is a big difference between what Bush and Co. did and myself. If I broke the law doing what I had to do to get that info I would freely admit it and accept the consequences.
I am sure most of you are familiar with the case of the father shooting and killing in an airport the pervert who molested his daughter who at the time was being escorted by some police. The father dropped his gun and surrended immediately. Now if I was in the same position, this sounds like a pretty good idea to me but I would be prepared for what happened afterward s. Bush and his buddies are just a bunch of p%^&ys hiding behind some bu$$^&it legal theories which they know they probably can't win. If they would just stand up and say "yeah we did it but we were trying to protect the country" I certainly would have more sympathy for them just like I do for the guy who shot the

So you are saying its OK to torture using waterboarding... Thats good I thought you we against making people feel uncomfortable.

I agree whole hardily.

I don't like many of the things Bush did either. he along with most other presidents in my life time have purposely sold this country out. Most have been treasonist bastards in my opinion.,save Regan
I think Reagan loved his country and the american people .`

Pete

cotts135

05-25-2009, 08:05 PM

So you are saying its OK to torture using waterboarding... Thats good I thought you we against making people feel uncomfortable.
Not quiet, I am against the government breaking the law and nobody being held accountable. What I would do, I think, is quiet a different thing.
.

I don't like many of the things Bush did either. he along with most other presidents in my life time have purposely sold this country out. Most have been treasonist bastards in my opinion.,save Regan
I think Reagan loved his country and the american people .`

My biggest concern about this issue is a 2 tier legal system where people of privilege and power are able to break the law with impunity while the common people feel the full power and weight of our bloated justice system. Our forefathers seen the tyranny and lawlesness of King George Vlll rule and how corrupt it was. They wrote the Constitution with that in the forefront of their thoughts and created a Republic that was base on laws not on men. I believe in this as strongly as someone believes in the right to bear arms and how the current administration is undermining that right.
For now I guess we will agree to disagree on this issue.

Did I tell you all about my pup who my trainer is now saying might be that special dog............................................. lol

Pete[/QUOTE]

Raymond Little

05-25-2009, 09:33 PM

If I knew that I wouldn't be prosecuted I might do just about anything. Even with the threat of jail time without question I would be tempted to do what ever it took to get what I needed. This is such a hypothetical question with the chances of it ever happening as close to zero as you can come, I can only answer I don't know what I would do. But here is a big difference between what Bush and Co. did and myself. If I broke the law doing what I had to do to get that info I would freely admit it and accept the consequences.
I am sure most of you are familiar with the case of the father shooting and killing in an airport the pervert who molested his daughter who at the time was being escorted by some police. The father dropped his gun and surrended immediately. Now if I was in the same position, this sounds like a pretty good idea to me but I would be prepared for what happened afterward s. Bush and his buddies are just a bunch of p%^&ys hiding behind some bu$$^&it legal theories which they know they probably can't win. If they would just stand up and say "yeah we did it but we were trying to protect the country" I certainly would have more sympathy for them just like I do for the guy who shot the molester.
For clarification; it was a youg boy who was taken out of state by his karate teacher and molested and it happened in the Baton Rouge La airport. I was very cool how the father shot at just the precise moment the scum turned the corner, watched it on the ten o'clock news LIVE. Grand jury REFUSED to indite which is the same thing they would do to Bush and Cheney. WE GET IT DOWN HERE IN THIS RED STATE!;)

Piss on BHO

Pete

05-26-2009, 12:37 AM

My biggest concern about this issue is a 2 tier legal system where people of privilege and power are able to break the law with impunity while the common people feel the full power and weight of our bloated justice system. Our forefathers seen the tyranny and lawlesness of King George Vlll rule and how corrupt it was. They wrote the Constitution with that in the forefront of their thoughts and created a Republic that was base on laws not on men. I believe in this as strongly as someone believes in the right to bear arms and how the current administration is undermining that right.
For now I guess we will agree to disagree on this issue.

careful ,,,your starting to sound like a conservative:D

Pete

txbadger

05-26-2009, 07:37 AM

"Bush and his buddies are just a bunch of p%^&ys hiding behind some bu$$^&it legal theories which they know they probably can't win. If they would just stand up and say "yeah we did it but we were trying to protect the country""

Quite unlike the current prez who thinks rendition is the way to go. You know, where you hire somebody else, say the Saudis to do your work for you & hope they share what they find out. I think if you condone the act you should do it yourself and quit being holier than thou .

Hoosier

05-26-2009, 08:58 AM

I think I'd rather be water boarded, then to read anymore of Cotts posts on this issue.

Pete

05-26-2009, 09:42 AM

I think we all hate our lying ,cheating ,deceptive polititians.
It goes against human nature to like that stuff. Anyone who agree's with the deceptiveness is probably about the same character.
But I don't believe I need to know alot of the techniques for gather info from our enemies.
I would like to see our politions waterboarded so we can extract the trueth from them.
Most of them belong in Gitmo with the rest of our enemies.

Pete

Gerry Clinchy

05-26-2009, 10:14 AM

What do I consider torture of an individual who was picked up on a battlefield and is our enemy?

What do I not consider torture?
1)Anything that gets the job done and potentially saves the lives of anyone, be it American or otherwise that the person in question is an enemy of.

I have no problem sleeping in my bed at night knowing that somewhere in the world someone is doing what some might consider bad things to someone else to keep me, my loved ones, and my country safe. I thank those who do the job everyday and especially today.

Somehow I don't really believe that you truly agree with doing the same thing to POWs that was done to U.S. POWs in Vietnam ... or in WW11 by the Japanese or Germans.

I think that John McCain's opposition to torture has everything to do with believing it is not right to do to any human being what was done to him in Vietnam. Can we say that those who tortured him did not believe that it was to keep themselves, their loved ones and their country safe? maybe we see their belief as the result of propaganda, but it may have been the belief of many of those who participated in his treatment. It goes without saying that there are also anti-social miscreants who don't need a reason to behave that way.

There is surely a middle ground between losing our own humanity v. being polite & nicey-nicey to captives, even when they are not in uniform. The dilemma is finding the wisdom to determine where the line is crossed between rigorous interrogation and "torture".

badbullgator

05-27-2009, 10:00 AM

Somehow I don't really believe that you truly agree with doing the same thing to POWs that was done to U.S. POWs in Vietnam ... or in WW11 by the Japanese or Germans.

I think that John McCain's opposition to torture has everything to do with believing it is not right to do to any human being what was done to him in Vietnam. Can we say that those who tortured him did not believe that it was to keep themselves, their loved ones and their country safe? maybe we see their belief as the result of propaganda, but it may have been the belief of many of those who participated in his treatment. It goes without saying that there are also anti-social miscreants who don't need a reason to behave that way.

There is surely a middle ground between losing our own humanity v. being polite & nicey-nicey to captives, even when they are not in uniform. The dilemma is finding the wisdom to determine where the line is crossed between rigorous interrogation and "torture".

You are wrong in that assumption. While I certainly DO NOT want to see it happen to our guys, you would have to be a FOOL to think that is does not and will not again. I am very sure that McCain has a different view since he went through it. What he has been through will certainly change your prospective on many things, but not always in the best way. I will say it again and I truly mean it do what is needed to be done. Come on now we are talking about war here. The idea is to kill your enemy because that is what they want to do to you. Anything less than death is giving them a break. Lets see, I have seen pictures that my nephews took in both Iraq and Afghanistan and I would say that water boarding or even having your fingernails pulled off is far better than a tank running over your head or being torn to shreds with 50mm’s and that is after all what happens in war. If you are captured and tortured you are still alive. It aint pretty, but it is the gamble all soldiers, theirs and ours, take everyday.
I agree with a middle ground and do not necessarly think you should go right to pulling off fingernails, start with asking nicely and move on from there. It is really up to them at that point as to where they want to give in.

Gerry Clinchy

05-27-2009, 12:26 PM

You are wrong in that assumption. While I certainly DO NOT want to see it happen to our guys, you would have to be a FOOL to think that is does not and will not again.

Not sure what assumption I'm wrong about.

I'm not foolish enough to think that this kind of treatment does not still happen to our guys if they're caught by enemies like those they face in Iraq & A'stan.

Also don't subscribe to the silly opinion that if we're nice to their guys, they'll be nicer to our guys. If we are nicer to their POWs (than they are to ours), it would be only because we could not countenance being as barbaric as the enemy.

I will say it again and I truly mean it do what is needed to be done.

But I think we can do it differently. Aren't there ways to use drugs to lower a person's mental defenses? Put them in a "twilight" between sleep and wakefulness ... and then ask them the questions? And while we're at that, implant some suggestions for future behaviors?

The problem, as well, with painful torture is that you are likely to get any information that the victim might think is plausible. If they don't really have facts, they will make some up to avoid further distress. I would. Wouldn't you?

I can't believe that we can't be more sophisticated than going back to the methods of the Inquisition! With all our scientific advancement since then, it is incredible to me that we would not have come up with a painless way to extract information like this from an unwilling captive.

And when it's all over, the information source has not had any pain inflicted. They are none the worse for wear either mentally or physically ... so I cannot call that torture ... rather it would be "pharmacologically assisted interrogation".

If we do use pharmcologically assisted interrogation, it might be a good thing NOT to tell the enemy we use it.

Personally, I do believe that the enemies who use torture on U.S. military captives do so, at least in part, for revenge. For whatever reason, they enjoy making these captives suffer because they are extracting revenge for the real or imagined distress the U.S. (or its allies) have caused them or their loved ones.

I agree with a middle ground and do not necessarly think you should go right to pulling off fingernails, start with asking nicely and move on from there. It is really up to them at that point as to where they want to give in.

And I think that a drug route would be even better. We get good information. Nobody gets hurt. We maintain our integrity. But I definitely wouldn't publicize the use and effectiveness of this kind of interrogation. Treat them as prisoners; without any special favors. Slip them a mickey in their soup. Get the information. Send 'em back to their cells none the wiser.

Gerry Clinchy

05-27-2009, 01:38 PM

Need to qualify that last post.

The use of drugs in interrogations would only be of use for POWs. As far as I know, POWs are not tried in a court; they are sent home at the end of hostilities. Thus, use of non-voluntary information has nothing to do with impugning their rights in a court of law. It is simply another way of gathering military intelligence.

In the case of civilian terrorists, it is a knottier problem. If they are to be tried in a court of law, then any information that might have been gathered "unconstitutionally" could not be used against them. I could live with that if the information saved lives.

Could use of drug interrogation lead to a terrorist's release simply because of a violation of their constitutional rights? If that means they "get off" to terrorize again, then it doesn't help.

badbullgator

05-27-2009, 02:38 PM

I was talking about you assuming I did not mean what I said. I have no problem with uising drugs to get the info, but I bet a lot of people, the same that don;t like what we do now, will be against it because sticking a needle in someone would hurt them.......

Gerry Clinchy

05-27-2009, 04:25 PM

I was talking about you assuming I did not mean what I said.

Okay, got that now.

I have no problem with uising drugs to get the info, but I bet a lot of people, the same that don;t like what we do now, will be against it because sticking a needle in someone would hurt them.......

Since needle sticks are commonplace, minor inconveniences in life, I don't thinkt here is any way that a few needle pricks, as commonly used for testing, medications and vaccinations, could be construed as torture. Of course, JMHO.

I'd be more inclined to think that some wingnut would contest that the person's "constitutional rights" were violated by use of the drugs to get information ... and use that basis to get the person totally off the hook for terrorist acts. However, if the information was not used in any litigation against that individual, I couldn't see why that should be the case.

badbullgator

05-27-2009, 04:36 PM

Okay, got that now.

Since needle sticks are commonplace, minor inconveniences in life, I don't thinkt here is any way that a few needle pricks, as commonly used for testing, medications and vaccinations, could be construed as torture. Of course, JMHO.

I'd be more inclined to think that some wingnut would contest that the person's "constitutional rights" were violated by use of the drugs to get information ... and use that basis to get the person totally off the hook for terrorist acts. However, if the information was not used in any litigation against that individual, I couldn't see why that should be the case.

You would be assuming that the drugs had no affect on the liver, kidneys or any other lasting effects. Ever read a list of pretty much any medications side effects. Could you live with yourself if some poor terrorist had his testicles shrink to the size of a pea and could not reproduce after you tortured him with drugs? What about all that oily gas residue that would be found in his prison duds? I would bet that drugs are pretty common in interrogations but that is just speculation. They would be easy to use and hard to detect/prove after about 72 hours…..
BTW- drugs like you are talking about are already banned by international law and considered torture. The KGB, Russians, and I am sure the CIA were very fond of this application;-)

Gerry Clinchy

05-27-2009, 08:01 PM

You would be assuming that the drugs had no affect on the liver, kidneys or any other lasting effects. Ever read a list of pretty much any medications side effects. Could you live with yourself if some poor terrorist had his testicles shrink to the size of a pea and could not reproduce after you tortured him with drugs?

I couldn't say that I would be very upset by that. And if no permanent injury is intended, could it be considered "torture"?

What about all that oily gas residue that would be found in his prison duds? I would bet that drugs are pretty common in interrogations but that is just speculation. They would be easy to use and hard to detect/prove after about 72 hours…..

BTW- drugs like you are talking about are already banned by international law and considered torture.

If the drugs that might be used do not cause permanent damage in reasonable dosage, this makes no sense to me. If there is a way to get information from a captive that does not cause pain or permanent damage, it just doesn't make sense to me. If the parties (the various countries) agree to these terms, it makes logical sense to simply not take prisoners? If you take prisoners & cannot gain any value from doing so, but have to feed them & keep them from escaping, what's the point of taking any prisoners? That seems far less humane ... but I imagine that is done, too, since there would be no witnesses to report the event.

In times of war, I would guess that most combatants who are captured have little or no information that is of significant strategic value. They are basically just cogs in a very large wheel, and there would be little reason to suspect that interrogation would be of much use.

With terrorists it could be useful to know the positions and identities of colleagues. And terrorists have already violated international law (I would think) by purposely targeting innocent non-combatants. (I think purposely is a key word to distinguish between that and unintended civilian casualties).

With Vietnam, it was pretty evident that the whole POW thing was a propaganda thing ... for the N Vietnamese population who were suffering with the war.

The KGB, Russians, and I am sure the CIA were very fond of this application;-)

I'd guess that everyone has come up with some new drugs along the way, and all the "players" are aware of what's going on. I'd guess that it's pretty likely that anything of overall strategic value is not conveyed to individuals in the combat zones for this very reason.